Kuve Limited Partnership v. Gerald La Pointe et al
Filing
8
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 12720 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, California, 90650, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC section 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
1
Simply stated, this action could not have been originally
2
filed in federal court because the complaint does not competently
3
allege
facts
supporting
either
diversity
or
federal-question
4
jurisdiction,
and
therefore
removal
is
improper.
28
U.S.C.
5
§ 1441(a), see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545
6
U.S. 546, 563 (2005).
Defendants’ notice of removal asserts that
7
“[f]ederal
question
[jurisdiction]
exists
because
Defendant’s
8
[sic] Answer . . . depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s
9
[sic] rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.”
(Notice
10
at 2, ll. 26-28).
These allegations are inadequate to confer
11
federal question jurisdiction.
See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
12
Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (“A defense that
13
raises
a
federal
question
is
inadequate
to
confer
federal
14
jurisdiction.”).
15
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED
16
to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 12720
17
Norwalk
Boulevard,
subject
matter
Norwalk,
California,
90650,
for
lack
of
18
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§ 1447(c);
19
(2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state
20
court;
and
(3)
the
Clerk
serve
copies
of
this
Order
21
parties.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
DATED:
April 19, 2016
25
26
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2
on
the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?